 chemaupr
join:2005-06-06
Alexandria, VA
| Telecos behind.... I bet this guy is getting $$$ from the telecos to fight their fight for them.
The requirements is actually a added value to the property. Which can be used for marketing. I will be happy buying a house that is ready for such upgrades without me having to deal with it... | |
|  | 
owenhome
keeper of the magic blue smoke
Premium
join:2002-07-13
Bentonville, AR
| Re: Telecos behind.... I'm sure something to that affect is behind it all. I have had several clients that are very, very large general contractors and builders and they certainly wouldn't squak over something like this. They would just lump it in to the cost of the building and make a few extra bucks on it. Every new job would just go up $5,000! 
But this, this is cutting off your nose to spite your face. It's stupid and just doesn't make any sense.
The Internet is a series of _plastic_ tubes......... hmmmmm
--
Never argue with a fool, people might not know the difference. | |
| | keyboard5684
join:2001-08-01
Youngsville, PA | Are the telcos really behind everything? I get tired of seeing these comments so I had to ask the question.
No, the cable company is not out to get you.
The telcos are not trying to kill you. | |
| | | chemaupr
join:2005-06-06
Alexandria, VA
| Re: Telecos behind.... give me a break. no they are not out there to kill you... and not they are not behind everything.
but they are out there trying to protect their market. that is why they sepnt millions in lobbying. that is why the spent millions in litigation with cities to slowdown the deployment of their fiber network. that is why they spent millions in marketing campains trying to educate (or mislead) consumers. | |
| | | | keyboard5684
join:2001-08-01
Youngsville, PA
 ·Teliax VOIP
 ·WestPAnet Inc.
 ·WestPAnet Inc. CA..
| Re: Telecos behind.... Of course they are out to protect there market, so is every other business.
Lobbying, that probably has to do with the laws put on them to restrict what they can and cannot do.
Millions to slowdown fiber deployments. Has this been effective? In my county, a local ISP is running fiber all over the county. Why? To directly compete with Verizon and cable companies, probably. Verizon is well aware of this since they have to have there lines on the bottom, so they have to be moved on every single pole so the ISP can attach its fiber. They have not sued yet?
Is it educate or mislead? Or is it advertising? Does everyone believe everything they read or heard?
I do not like the telco or other large monopolistic businesses but I do agree with there right to compete.
This particular thread was about contractors building houses and running extra conduit for the city network. It is fine to express your opinion but I completely disagree with the idea the telco is behind the contractors suing. There was nothing indicating they had anything to do with it. Also, go through threads and see how much telcos and cable companies are blamed for everything. | |
| | | | 
ropeguru
Premium
join:2001-01-25
Bridgeport, WV
clubs:
·VOIPo
| said by chemaupr  :give me a break. no they are not out there to kill you... and not they are not behind everything. but they are out there trying to protect their market. that is why they sepnt millions in lobbying. that is why the spent millions in litigation with cities to slowdown the deployment of their fiber network. that is why they spent millions in marketing campains trying to educate (or mislead) consumers. Give me a break. You say they are out there trying to protect their market. How can it be their market when they refuse to serve people where buildouts like this are occurring? As far as I am concerened, if they don't want to build because they have deemed it unprofitable, then they have forfeited all rights to fight whoever tries to provide service. This crap of figting everything just because has got to stop.
--
FWD#: 223611 | |
| | | | | chemaupr
join:2005-06-06
Alexandria, VA
| Re: Telecos behind.... said by ropeguru :said by chemaupr : Give me a break. How can it be their market when they refuse to serve people where buildouts like this are occurring? As far as I am concerened, if they don't want to build because they have deemed it unprofitable, then they have forfeited all rights to fight whoever tries to provide service. This crap of figting everything just because has got to stop. you probably did not understand my point. when I say "protect their market" I do not mean protect from wrong doing or bad services.... I mean to maintain control and avoid the competition. As far as the rest of your comments, I agree | |
| | | | | |
ropeguru
Premium
join:2001-01-25
Bridgeport, WV
clubs:
·VOIPo
| Re: Telecos behind.... said by chemaupr :said by ropeguru :said by chemaupr : Give me a break. How can it be their market when they refuse to serve people where buildouts like this are occurring? As far as I am concerened, if they don't want to build because they have deemed it unprofitable, then they have forfeited all rights to fight whoever tries to provide service. This crap of figting everything just because has got to stop. you probably did not understand my point. when I say "protect their market" I do not mean protect from wrong doing or bad services.... I mean to maintain control and avoid the competition. As far as the rest of your comments, I agree I must have misunderstood. It just seems that the telcos keep saying they will not serve lots of areas because they deem it unprofitable. However, when a muni in those areas decide to step up and provide the service to their citizens, the telcos spend miliions in court and advertising trying to stop it. My point was that is they don't want to provide the service because it is unprofitable, then they give up all rights to that area. Even to "maintain control and avoid the competition."
--
FWD#: 223611 | |
| | | | | | | 
Combat Chuck
Too Many Cannibals
Premium
join:2001-11-29
Erie, PA
1 edit | Re: Telecos behind.... said by ropeguru :My point was that is they don't want to provide the service because it is unprofitable, then they give up all rights to that area. Even to "maintain control and avoid the competition." But see the thing is at some point in the future it may become profitable to do so. But having a muni there would almost guarantee that it won't ever be, at least not until some point in the future when the muni's network begins to age.
That's why they don't want the muni, it's not scorched earth tactics as some seem to think.
--
Early to rise, early to bed;
Makes a man healthy but socially dead. | |
| | | | | | | |
ropeguru
Premium
join:2001-01-25
Bridgeport, WV
clubs:
·VOIPo
| Re: Telecos behind.... said by Combat Chuck :said by ropeguru :My point was that is they don't want to provide the service because it is unprofitable, then they give up all rights to that area. Even to "maintain control and avoid the competition." But see the thing is at some point in the future it may become profitable to do so. But having a muni there would almost guarantee that it won't ever be, at least not until some point in the future when the muni's network begins to age. That's why they don't want the muni, it's not scorched earth tactics as some seem to think. Ahhh... So the citizen is supposed to suffer with no options until big bad telco thinks it is time for them to finally get around to providing something. I still say it is "scorched earth tactics" no matter how you look at it. It just only goes further to prove the mentality of big business and their childish antics. They will noever grow up and always only be thinking about the money.
It used to be this country was a country of innovation and chances on new things. Now, it is only about satifying the short term investor and no one has the ability to see long term anymore.
--
FWD#: 223611 | |
| | | | | | | | |
Combat Chuck
Too Many Cannibals
Premium
join:2001-11-29
Erie, PA
| Re: Telecos behind.... said by ropeguru :Ahhh... So the citizen is supposed to suffer with no options until big bad telco thinks it is time for them to finally get around to providing something. Did I say that...no.
said by ropeguru :I still say it is "scorched earth tactics" no matter how you look at it. Just because you say it doesn't make it true.
said by ropeguru :It just only goes further to prove the mentality of big business and their childish antics. They will noever grow up and always only be thinking about the money. As opposed to your childish mentality that they should just build out without consideration of being a good steward of their investors money, because the people gots teh have their broadband.
said by ropeguru :It used to be this country was a country of innovation and chances on new things. It still is but there's a big difference between taking a chance and throwing money at something you know you can't sustain.
said by ropeguru :Now, it is only about satifying the short term investor and no one has the ability to see long term anymore. Well when it's your money on the line you can do what you please with it, including investing in a company and choosing to remove your money should said company take a loss over an extended period of time waiting on expensive capital investments to pay out.
--
Early to rise, early to bed;
Makes a man healthy but socially dead. | |
| | | | | | | | | |
ropeguru
Premium
join:2001-01-25
Bridgeport, WV
clubs:
·VOIPo
| Re: Telecos behind.... said by Combat Chuck :said by ropeguru :Ahhh... So the citizen is supposed to suffer with no options until big bad telco thinks it is time for them to finally get around to providing something. Did I say that...no. In those exact words, no, you didn't. But by making statements that the telcos have the right to protect themselves by fighting any other competition when they, themselves, are not planning on providing the service, then you are saying that the citizens should just suffer.
said by Combat Chuck :said by ropeguru :I still say it is "scorched earth tactics" no matter how you look at it. Just because you say it doesn't make it true. It is not jsut me saying. The actions of the telcos spending millions of dollars to fight something instead of using the money to build out the system and just provide the service, says so.
said by Combat Chuck :said by ropeguru :It just only goes further to prove the mentality of big business and their childish antics. They will noever grow up and always only be thinking about the money. As opposed to your childish mentality that they should just build out without consideration of being a good steward of their investors money, because the people gots teh have their broadband. So now I see it is me being childish. If they are being good stewards to their investors, they would not being wasting the investors money by spending millions fight somehting they do not plan on providing in the first place.
said by Combat Chuck :said by ropeguru :It used to be this country was a country of innovation and chances on new things. It still is but there's a big difference between taking a chance and throwing money at something you know you can't sustain. Used to be lots of companies took those chances. But because they have started letting short sighted day traders completely take over, they can no longer look into the long term and plan for the future. The fight that Verizon's cCEO has had on his hands with investors proves that point. I am totally surprised they have not ousted him by now.
said by Combat Chuck :said by ropeguru :Now, it is only about satifying the short term investor and no one has the ability to see long term anymore. Well when it's your money on the line you can do what you please with it, including investing in a company and choosing to remove your money should said company take a loss over an extended period of time waiting on expensive capital investments to pay out. See my answer above.
--
FWD#: 223611 | |
| | | | | | | | | |
Combat Chuck
Too Many Cannibals
Premium
join:2001-11-29
Erie, PA
| Re: Telecos behind.... said by ropeguru :In those exact words, no, you didn't. But by making statements that the telcos have the right to protect themselves by fighting any other competition when they, themselves, are not planning on providing the service, then you are saying that the citizens should just suffer. Nope, I never said that. Cool off, take a step back and reread what I said.
said by ropeguru :It is not jsut me saying. The actions of the telcos spending millions of dollars to fight something instead of using the money to build out the system and just provide the service, says so. The issue is bigger than just the one area, neighborhoods don't exist in a vacuum.
said by ropeguru :So now I see it is me being childish. If they are being good stewards to their investors, they would not being wasting the investors money by spending millions fight somehting they do not plan on providing in the first place. Ah but there again you still insist that they have no intention of building into the area. Just because an area is not profitable now doesn't mean it won't be if they wire the neighboring areas. They're paying money now to attempt to protect future potential income, which they probably think is a better investment than wiring the area with current technology and letting it bleed money.
said by ropeguru :Used to be lots of companies took those chances. But because they have started letting short sighted day traders completely take over, they can no longer look into the long term and plan for the future. The fight that Verizon's cCEO has had on his hands with investors proves that point. I am totally surprised they have not ousted him by now. Funny how you like to talk about investors, and by extension Verizon, being short sighted. Yet you can't see that the whole reason they are fighting muni's in areas they aren't currently interested in is because they are looking to the future; a future where for instance it might be profitable to wire an adjacent area knowing that it gives them options to wire the development we're currently talking about.
And yes Verizon is making decisions based on what their investors want because their investors can take their money elsewhere if they don't, leaving Verizon with nothing. What do you expect them to do; just tell their investors to piss off, bury the money in someones yard and hope no one comes after them?
I'm not defending what Verizon does; it's just that you want to take this into the realm of the emotional; the CEO in his black tower throwing darts at a map to decide who he screws today just for the fun of it, when it's not. It's the CEO in his boardroom trying to protect a future stream of income because it puts his company in a better position for the future. It's no different that union members going on strike to because they don't like their retirement plan and insurance.
--
Early to rise, early to bed;
Makes a man healthy but socially dead. | |
| | | | | | | | | | wentlanc
You Can't Fix Dumb..
join:2003-07-30
Maineville, OH
| Re: Telecos behind.... People will not sit around and wait until "some day" to get services that other areas get today. And they should not have to just because some company wants to cherry pick who it is giving access to, and when. Make a commitment, and give a timeline. If they said we will service that area, but buildout is not until next year... I think people would be ok with that. But they want to pass up the area as unprofitable, but we don't want anyone else to sneak in while we aren't doing anything.
puritan | |
| | | 
yock
TFTC
Premium
join:2000-11-21
Fairfield, OH
| I don't understand... Perhaps I don't fully understand the builder's responsibility here, but if they're merely being paid to lay pipe, what's the big deal? It isn't like they're on the hook to pay for any amount of on-going maintenance or service. This is a contract dispute, one which could easily add to their profit on the project.
What else is going on here?
--
Wiki Wiki
Laughter is the closest distance between two people. --Victor Borge | |
| 
Titus Pullo
I came, I saw, I slept
join:2004-06-26
 ·Embarq
| Is it really the cost at issue here? Two-fifty a house seems small change. This smacks of collusion. Follow the money: who gains (or suffers lack of gain)? Answer that, end of story.
--
"I am not young enough to know everything."
Oscar Wilde | |
| | chemaupr
join:2005-06-06
Alexandria, VA
| Re: Is it really the cost said by Titus Pullo :at issue here? Two-fifty a house seems small change. This smacks of collusion. Follow the money: who gains (or suffers lack of gain)? Answer that, end of story. how lack of gain- THE TELCOMS. likley to lose one more cust
How gains- the builder... the builder will be adding value to the property, thus chargin for it. Those $250 can be translated to $1000 more in the price of the new home.
how gains- the buyer future effortless upgrade to a technology
how gains - the county, faster deployment of technology. | |
| | |
Combat Chuck
Too Many Cannibals
Premium
join:2001-11-29
Erie, PA
1 edit | Re: Is it really the cost said by chemaupr :How gains- the builder... the builder will be adding value to the property, thus chargin for it. Those $250 can be translated to $1000 more in the price of the new home. You sure about that? I don't really see "Includes Conduit" as being a real selling point.
The problem I have with this (beyond the issue that they're essentially locking the community into a government run monopoly) is that it has nothing to do with not wanting to tear up someones lawn, it's the government hiding some of the cost of their muni in the price of a new home so the citizen doesn't notice. They don't want to jack up taxes, they don't want to add that to the install fee, they want the enduser to look to the contractor as the bad guy then they can sweep in and say "look how cheap we are".
--
Early to rise, early to bed;
Makes a man healthy but socially dead. | |
| | | | Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
| Re: Is it really the cost What are you talking about?
They are requring a conduit to be ran that any provider can use along with the other typical pipes ran to any new home.
Where in that are you coming up with this fantasy world of a "government run monopoly?
You are grasping at straws on your stupid conceived idea as to what the big bad government is trying to do here. | |
| | | | |
Combat Chuck
Too Many Cannibals
Premium
join:2001-11-29
Erie, PA
1 edit | Re: Is it really the cost said by Skippy25 :What are you talking about? They are requring a conduit to be ran that any provider can use along with the other typical pipes ran to any new home. Where in that are you coming up with this fantasy world of a "government run monopoly? You are grasping at straws on your stupid conceived idea as to what the big bad government is trying to do here. In what I like to call "reality" the article states
quote:
He said the village is telling developers that, if they want to get village water and sewer services for a proposed subdivision, then they will be required to include a conduit for broadband services and dedicate the conduit to the village.
emphasis mine.
And just like the indirect sales tax (aka: business taxes), and federal withholding (so that "screwed by the government all year round" turns into "happy fun-time government gives me money day" on the 15th of April); this is being implemented in order to hide a tax from the populace in a place where they either won't notice it or, if they do, will place the blame on someone who isn't the government who mandated it. | |
| keyboard5684
join:2001-08-01
Youngsville, PA
·Teliax VOIP
·WestPAnet Inc.
·WestPAnet Inc. CA..
| Whats the problem? I do not understand the problem either.
That is correct, the contractors actually get to charge to do that, so more money for them.
I have seen things like this and the contractors claim liability and warranty. A friend of mine had a new house build and they wanted wiring through the house for network, there home theater system, and others things to s single point in the basement. The company said they would not do it, and would not allow someone else to come in and do it, because it voided the warranty of the work? If we did it after they were done (which is more difficult once the drywall is up) then that was fine.
It amazes me, you pay someone to build YOUR house and they argue over the dumbest things.
I guess it would be wise for a company to step up and announce they are happy to do this and then take all that work others are not willing to do. | |
| | 
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| Re: Whats the problem? said by keyboard5684 :That is correct, the contractors actually get to charge to do that, so more money for them. From what I read, I think the town in question wants the builder to run the cable, and then give ownership of said cable to the town. Builders already do this when they build roads, sewer lines, sidewalks, water pipes and other such things into new construction.
Technically, the cost of all this infrastructure is passed down to the buyer so the builder isn't really taking too much of a hit here. However, this infrastructure adds value to the property in that you wouldn't buy a house you could not drive to or which did not have plumbing or electric.
I think in the case of this government supplied broadband, the builder probably thinks it cannot pass the costs of running this down to the buyers, because there is nothing forcing them to use it (they could either not buy the service, or go with a different provider) and hence, it does not add value to the property.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. | |
| | | | | 
dispatcher21
join:2004-01-22
united state
| Re: Builders are shortsighted; but city shouldn't mandate it If conduit is needed for the provider, that is the providers responsibiliy not the building contractor. If underground is needed, its not the contractors job to lay the conduit, its the telcos or cable companies job since they are responsible/have ownership from the pole to the demarc box, thats why they are supposed to be at new construction sites so they get all thier needed stuff laid out before the job is done. Have you seen the price of conduit lately? I doubt $250.00 would cover the cost. Besides...the contractor probably already signed a bid with the home owners and then this ordinance was passed after the fact. Now, take that $250.00 and multiply it by the number of homes and there is the real cost to the contractor, lets say 500 homes, thats $125,000, would you want to loose that much money? And since he already has a signed bid with the home owner, he cant go back and ask them for more money. | |
| | | 
2kmaro
Think
Premium,ExMod 1 BC
join:2000-07-11
ColossalCave
clubs: 
2 edits | Change the Law! Rescind the requirement.
Relabel it as an environmentally friendly requirement and get the support from groups like PETA.
City Ordinance #10104:
Emergency Escape Route for small pets, as mice, hamsters, etc.
Requirement: that a piece of plastic pipe of sufficient size to permit passage of said rodent from residence to safe range from burning/collapsing residence be provided. Use as Rodent Escape Route for other purposes, as providing entry for data transmission lines, is permitted.
===============
While I don't consider myself a Conspiracy Theory buff, I really find it hard to believe that the builders are balking on this issue without prompting from a shadowy 3rd party. It costs them NOTHING out in the long run, and like EVERY DAMNED NAIL, STAPLE, roofing shingle, drop of paint, etc. they are going to tack a price with profit margin on top of it. If there's a "loser" in this, its the buyer who has to pay for it. And as has been noted, it's a value-added item that they should be either glad to have or not give a care about. My goodness, it's probably cheaper than the front door on the home and stands less chance of ever having to be replaced.
--
...then THINK! again!! | |
| | 
ronpin
Imagine Reality
join:2002-12-06
Nirvana
·AT&T Southwest
| Re: Change the Law! said by 2kmaro :Rescind the requirement. Relable it as... Relabel it as "NSA CALEA compliance conduit" or the "Conduit Reform Act of 2006" -- only terrorists would resist such an ordinance -- and we have ways of dealing with them 
--
"Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country" - and stop the NeoCons | |
| 
viperpa33s
Why Me?
Premium
join:2002-12-20
Bradenton, FL
·Bright House
| Builders are full of crap This is surprising since all the builder does is add it on to the price of the house. I know quite a few people who had add ons done to the house when being built and the builder did it with no questions asked.
Builders are more worried about this than contributing to school over crowding. What ever happened to pleasing and keeping the customers happy? | |
| | markopoleo
join:2003-04-02
Bonne Terre, MO
·Charter Pipeline
| Re: Builders are full of crap Well its obvious you never built a house.
Lots, LOTS, of stuff builders just "can't add on price of house".
%99.9 of builders get loans for building a house, laws like this passed cut into profits of builders. If your building 100 homes, it adds up to huge losses.
In fact, you would not believe the little things that make building in some areas impossible now. Something simple as a sewer tap here cost $500 a home cause of stupid laws. 100 homes in a sub-division adds up, esp with all the "what if's" that come up. We built A modest $120k home once, the septic system ended up being $14k..that's right, 14 thousand cause of some new tree hugger law. Insane. | |
| | |
viperpa33s
Why Me?
Premium
join:2002-12-20
Bradenton, FL | Re: Builders are full of crap Like I said in my past post, I knew quite a few people who had houses built and the builder had no problems making changes. | |
| 
upidstay
@bellsouth.net
| Pipes,Tubes, Conduit....Oh My! Right on, Tkjunkmail, The builders most likely do not want to be told what they must do in building property. It is not like adding the infrastructure would be overly diffucult or if it was a conspiracy theory, since I think most builders would want to add features that would drive up the asking price, it is just that adding features drives up cost, with the risk of litte or no return on an investment. Add to that having to be mandated to do service infrastructure for a utility that you are not experienced in or not in the industry you specialized in (imagine if General Mills made a video game system, or General Motors for that matter, even G.E.) only adds to that risk when there are private sector companies that can do and handle tasks like that much better. | |
| 
richk_1957
If ..Then..Else
Premium
join:2001-04-11
Minas Tirith
| The Telco's [ ISP] are probably behind it, after all Initially, I was on the builders side because I thought that if this pipe was laid down, everyone in the association would have to get broadband from the association - whether they liked or not. But then I though 'what's the beef, it's not like the builders are being asked to do something for free'. Reading the article, the builders say :
said by Milwaukee Journal Sentinel :
They've created a utility to compete with the private sector, and they are requiring the builders to give them the needed equipment for the service
I guess that conduit can be considered 'needed equipment'. The article goes further to say :
said by Milwaukee Journal Sentinel :
private companies have chosen not to provide Jackson with broadband capability.
Ah-Ha!
We've all read about how the Telcos have fought against having local networks set up, even when they have no coverage in that area! So, the association is not competing with the private sector, because they have chosen not to make broadband available. This also throws out my initial worry 'what if someone doesn't like the broadband provided by the association'. Well, there is no-one else to go to, it seems like the Village of Jackson is a broadband 'black hole'. | |
| 
Michieru2
zzz zzz zzz
Premium
join:2005-01-28
Miami, FL | .... From the article:
"the ordinance would illegally force builders to help pay for a non-essential service"
Doh I would be suing too! | |
| Derfel
join:2004-06-06
Winnipeg, MB | Apostrophe?? Shouldn't this be "Builders" not "Builder's"?
Sheesh. | |
| | 
woody7
Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA
·EarthLink
·DSL EXTREME
| hmmm... In my town, all new homes, comercial etc. have to have "all" wiring below ground....It seem weird at first, but when you drive down the main street you don't see any powerpoles etc...looks kind of nice.. as for the builders, I can't understand the resistance....I think everyone has equal access to the conduit....
--
BlooMe | |
| 
jig
join:2001-01-05
Hacienda Heights, CA
| still pretty strange most of the contractors i know love to throw down extra conduit in any large hole they've built. no-one likes to dig a second time.
if the ordinance somehow forces the builders to foot the cost, then that's bad. but i don't a reasonable way for them to have to foot the cost. they might be between a contract and a hard place (contract with the homeowners, ordinance on the other side), but i think i'd be trying to renegotiate the contract rather than fight the ordinance. OR, i'd say either the contract was void or the application of the ordinance should allow grandfathered contracts.
maybe what really happened is that they used an old contract with old ##s and got caught out by the new ordinance. at $250 a pop, i'm not sure how they worked out the math for it to make sense to bring a suit. if the money is there already (union dues or something), then i suppose it's automatic.
from a homeowner and technophile perspective, however, i just want them to f-n put in the conduit, don't charge an arm and a leg to do it, add the cost onto the current contract.
--
A man compounded of law and gospel is able to cheat a whole country with his religion and then destroy them under color of law. -Ben Franklin | |
| claudeo
join:2000-02-23
Redmond, WA
1 edit | Reasonable I agree that dropping a conduit into an already open trench is an excellent idea. In fact, it is really stupid *not* to do it. And the telco or cableco shills should be ashamed for bashing the idea on the basis of bogus "competition" or "free enterprise" arguments.
There is definitely a cost though. The cost is not so much for the pipe itself as for where the pipe ends. Assuming that it ends in a box in the house, for example, there is cost with placing and fitting the box. Same at the street end. How does it terminate? It probably needs some kind of useful waterproof termination, if only to prevent dirt and critters from entering it. How is its location documented so that several years from now it can be found without exploratory digging? An empty plastic pipe won't show on ground scanners designed to find gas, water and wiring.
(added) Even so, it would still cost less to do it than to hire lawyers for a lawsuit, and for the subsequent lawsuits when owners discover that the builders had an opportunity to do it right but did not. | |
| | seederjed
join:2005-02-28
Snellville, GA | Re: Reasonable Around here, all conduit from the street to the house are run w/ a wire attached so the locaters can find them when marking.
As far as terminating at the street, have the electric co. bury another splice box next to theres. | |
| staijo
join:2002-01-09
Roswell, GA
·Charter Pipeline
| about the cable/phone companies... Well, my experience tells me that you can lay the conduit all you want. When the cable or phone(or whoever else) company comes to service this neighborhood, they will dig it all up anyway. Cut the existing lines in 1/2 a dozen places and put their own boxes where this conduit will be useless....
Lilly Tomlin did a bit on Saturday Night Live many years ago... "We are the phone company. We do what we want. What do we care......" | |
| 
batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ
clubs: | I'm sure the town is playing fair. Is the town forcing the builder to place the conduits for telephone, electric and CATV? Of course they aren't. If you trust politicians more then utilities I have a great bridge for sale in Brooklyn. | |
| | | |
|
|
Builder's Sue Wisconsin Village Over Broadband Requirements
Builders are shortsighted; but city shouldn't mandate it
